Jim,
On 7 Dec 2008, at 15:14, James Fuller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Jeni Tennison
> <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>> I think a better guide would be that any process that returns an
>> atomic
>> value (eg string, number) should be an XPath function; any process
>> that
>> returns XML should be an XProc step.
>
> this could be made to be true (and I like the characterization); but
> this is not saying much as the difference between a string, number and
> xml could just be an interceding c:result root element.
Yes. I just think it's wasteful to generate nodes when all you really
want is an atomic value. And that it's more work for users to invoke a
step than a function.
> I think the less xproc ordained functions the better ... I would
> propose leaving it to future versions to figure out.
I agree that it's less intrusive for XProc to define steps than to
define XPath extension functions; I think it'll prove less usable, but
that is something we can correct later if we need to.
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com